📦

Audit History

solidity-security - 8 audits

Version comparison

Capability and finding changes across audited versions, newest first.

VersionDateResultReview itemsChange vs previous
v8 LatestJul 8, 2026, 02:12 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v7 Jul 8, 2026, 02:12 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v6 Jul 1, 2026, 12:26 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v5 Jul 1, 2026, 12:26 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v4 Jan 17, 2026, 10:17 AM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v3 Jan 17, 2026, 10:17 AM No confirmed findings0Contains scriptsExternal commands
v2 Jan 4, 2026, 04:26 PM No confirmed findings0No capability change
v1 Jan 4, 2026, 04:26 PM No confirmed findings0Baseline

Jul 1, 2026, 12:26 AM

Static analysis flagged many high and medium patterns, but review found they are false positives from Markdown code fences, Solidity require statements, and security terminology. The skill is a single documentation file with no executable script, network call, environment access, or prompt injection evidence. It is safe to publish with a low risk note because it contains vulnerable Solidity examples that must be read in context.

1
Files scanned
508
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
3
False positives ignored
Static false positives ignored (3)

These static matches were dismissed by semantic review or matched schema-only tokens, so they are shown for transparency but do not drive the quality score.

Low
Solidity require Statements Misclassified as Dynamic Imports
The flagged lines are Solidity require checks inside educational smart contract examples. They do not load modules, execute dynamic code, or accept shell input.
Line review shows these are Solidity validation statements in fenced code examples. No JavaScript dynamic require pattern or executable loader is present.
Low
Keyword-Based Blocker Findings Are False Positives
The weak cryptography and system reconnaissance alerts are triggered by security-related text and Solidity examples. No weak hash implementation, host probing, or local system data collection appears in the skill.
The cited lines are the skill description, a JavaScript test heading, a checklist item, and Solidity require examples. They do not perform cryptography or reconnaissance.
Audited by: codex

Jul 1, 2026, 12:26 AM

Static analysis flagged many high and medium patterns, but review found they are false positives from Markdown code fences, Solidity require statements, and security terminology. The skill is a single documentation file with no executable script, network call, environment access, or prompt injection evidence. It is safe to publish with a low risk note because it contains vulnerable Solidity examples that must be read in context.

1
Files scanned
508
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
3
False positives ignored
Static false positives ignored (3)

These static matches were dismissed by semantic review or matched schema-only tokens, so they are shown for transparency but do not drive the quality score.

Low
Solidity require Statements Misclassified as Dynamic Imports
The flagged lines are Solidity require checks inside educational smart contract examples. They do not load modules, execute dynamic code, or accept shell input.
Line review shows these are Solidity validation statements in fenced code examples. No JavaScript dynamic require pattern or executable loader is present.
Low
Keyword-Based Blocker Findings Are False Positives
The weak cryptography and system reconnaissance alerts are triggered by security-related text and Solidity examples. No weak hash implementation, host probing, or local system data collection appears in the skill.
The cited lines are the skill description, a JavaScript test heading, a checklist item, and Solidity require examples. They do not perform cryptography or reconnaissance.
Audited by: codex

Jan 17, 2026, 10:17 AM

Pure educational documentation skill containing Solidity security guidance. No code execution, file access, or network capabilities. All 81 static findings are false positives caused by the scanner misidentifying Solidity syntax as security threats (e.g., 'call' as C2, 'keccak256' as weak crypto, markdown code fences as shell backticks).

2
Files scanned
684
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: claude

Jan 17, 2026, 10:17 AM

Pure educational documentation skill containing Solidity security guidance. No code execution, file access, or network capabilities. All 81 static findings are false positives caused by the scanner misidentifying Solidity syntax as security threats (e.g., 'call' as C2, 'keccak256' as weak crypto, markdown code fences as shell backticks).

2
Files scanned
684
Lines analyzed
2
Review items
0
False positives ignored
Audited by: claude

Jan 4, 2026, 04:26 PM

Pure prompt-based educational skill containing only Solidity security guidance. No code execution, file access, network calls, or external command capabilities detected.

4
Files scanned
722
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude

Jan 4, 2026, 04:26 PM

Pure prompt-based educational skill containing only Solidity security guidance. No code execution, file access, network calls, or external command capabilities detected.

4
Files scanned
722
Lines analyzed
0
Review items
0
False positives ignored
No confirmed security findings were recorded for this completed audit.
Audited by: claude